30 comments:

The Review Journal reports "UNLV law school leaps in rankings". The 2018 rankings of U.S. News and World Report has the school at the 62nd ranking-a 16 point jump placing the school ahead of many major private schools in California (where I graduated). If that is the case that the law school is doing so well, then why is the law school asking that the grading be lowered on the Nevada Bar (increasing the pass rate). Link to on line article below. Boyd has done a fine job with its law school. However, don't lower the admissions requirements for the bar because of them which will consequently attract so many failures from California.

I'm sure the dean wants to lower bar admission standards to help the school's ranking even more. School rankings take into account employment rates and bar passage. So a higher pass rate helps rankings.

Being a law school dean is like 99% gaming US News rankings. The only time I heard Dean Dan talk, he drifted into a long discussion of the US News rankings system, even when it didn't seem relevant to anything going on at all. He clearly thinks about it a lot.

Some schools pay their unemployed grads for a few months just so they can game the rankings. Others have games where they can get their high GPA students in without taking an LSAT which could tank average GPA. I'm sure Dean Dan gave himself a high five over the bump, and then went right to work trying to figure out how he could maintain or improve it.

Boyd had a decent pass rate on the bar exam. I doubt it was about the rankings to increase the pass rate for Boyd. The point is that if Boyd is doing so well why are they taking on the bar exam. The bar exam grading was made easier for Boyd once before. They need to do more on their end like covering all the subjects tested and covering all the topics in the big 7--Torts, Contracts, Property, Con Law, Crim Law, Crim Pro and Civ Pro. A student should not be studying a topic in a subject for the first time on the bar. Our law clerk, a Boyd grad failed the bar. He said Evidence was not a required subject at the law school. He said they did not cover a lot of the topics in each of the basic subjects. How can that be? They also need to start failing marginal students. There are always folks who never pass the bar exam from every law school in every jurisdiction. Boyd's agenda is make the bar exam easier for them. Hides their deficiencies. Maybe we will be moving towards the Uniform Bar Exam. Then we will have reciprocity on top of that. The attorneys better get involved in this profession and its future. Don't leave to the carpetbaggers at the law school (most faculty from somewhere else). Boyd professors get to "waive" into the bar here on motion. So unfair.

I had the same professor. IMO that is a small thing to learn after the fact and save some trauma for a few. Both sides to that argument are valid on that one so I'm not going to get into it, but for something like that I was okay with not going over it in class. However, I do not agree with Evidence not being required as well as a few other BS requirements which are. Also, having jumped between the full time day and part time evening programs, there is a world of difference as to the offerings and I take more offense to that. Further, the bar prep sessions they offer and push to increase the pass rate are during the night students classes. From what I have seen, I would hire a night student just because I have seen the extra hoops they have gone through to get the same piece of paper (and if I am not mistaken, Boyd's night program is ranked 4th in the country?). I could go on, about the difference, but I have better things to do like make money.

Like I said, valid points on both sides. Just when I weigh it, it's not as big a deal, we discussed all the rest of the crimes of violence. For me, I saw merit in this particular approach for this particular crime and that it was the sole thing that wasn't covered. You have a different opinion that I respect.

I went to Boyd. I knew what the topics the Bar covers because the school told me so. After my first year, I made sure to take more Bar subject courses to ensure I knew most of my stuff going into Bar review. Is it up to the school to make sure I do so? That is obviously the question at issue. I don't think the school should hand hold students through out the years and tell (actually MAKE) them take certain classes after 1L year. If the student wants to take some random law course not offered on the bar, thats on him/her, not the school. I appreciate the school offering various courses and making sure students leave as well rounded as possible. But this is a graduate professional school, and its up to the students to make a choice between what they wanna learn in school versus what they wanna cram during bar exam. Also, during Bar prep I relied heavily on the Academic Success Program educators to read and grade my subject essays, which markedly improved my bar writing. I will always appreciate the school for providing such resource. But in the end, that was my choice to make, not the school's choice in making learn the way I did. I did not expect the school to hold my hand. They made resources available, they told me they were available, and they also told me what I was ultimately responsible for. The rest is up to me to decide how i take my journey.

How is that race shaping up between Cedric Kerns and Crystal Eller for Muni Court Las Vegas? My money is on Kerns but look at the Bita Yeager race she got defeated by Rebecca Kern. Crystal Eller has Dave Thomas as her campaign manager. I recognize the commercials and the style. Kerns commercials are pretty good. Interesting dynamics in that race. Anyone have any insight.

In Nevada judicial races, when it is one female against one male, the female has tremendous built-in advantage--they gain several percentage points based on the gender factor. But Kerns can help balance that out by the fact he is the incumbent, and has more name recognition and presumably more funds at his disposal. But those factors in Kerns' favor are of less weight as Eller does have Dave Thomas in her corner.

I have no idea who will win, but I bet the winner will squeak out with just over 50%,but no more than 52%, of the vote.

How is anyone "so biased" against female candidates. The one person, at 12:05, blogged that Eller should do well in her race, and said nothing negative about her. He only pointed out that Eller may be helped by a gender advantage. Being a female in a judicial race in Nevada is of significant aid to a candidate. Often, in judicial races, most voters know little or nothing about the candidates. So, anything which might distinguish those candidates from each other is helpful. Sometimes incumbency and a familiar name is helpful. Sometimes seeing that a candidate is female may be helpful, as many voters favor female candidates in judicial races--particularly if they know nothing else about the candidates aside from their gender.

And it appears that no other blogger even mentioned gender. Certainly, no one brought up the issue of gender in a negative sense. So, why do you look for bias and prejudice in places where there is no evidence of it? There are many places where you can actually find it. Why not put your efforts in those directions?

Why does that professor think a rape victim will be any less affected by the discussion in a bar review course? Just passing the buck. People have the class schedule. If you can't handle the topic of the day, don't show up. Are we going to stop teaching about war powers because of vets in the class? What about victims of other violent crimes? What about people who have ben victims of civil torts or whose families have been sued - can we not discuss tort law now? No more family law because students may have been divorced, or the children of divorce, or in abusive family situations? Recovering alcoholics or drug users - no DUI or possession crimes to be discussed?

Political correctness to the point of changing a syllabus completely around based on the fact there may be some individual troubled by a certain topic, is ludicrous beyond measure.

And why does the professor assume there are several rape victims in the class and that they would be traumatized by a short discussion of the elements of the crime. Any past rape victim who attends the class would certainly know the topic may arise, so presumably they are prepared to handle it.

And does the professor now say burglary will be eliminated for the agenda because some student may have been burglarized, or may have a relative, friend, co-worker or acquaintance whose home was burglarized.

And has the Torts professor eliminated all discussion of negligence,(even though that pretty much guts the syllabus), because there may be students who were in a fender bender, or who know someone who was?

Once we start with this nonsense, the line keeps moving further out, and further out...

One of the Torts professors never took a bar exam anywhere. He graduated from Wisconsin and waived into Wisconsin and then Nevada. Do you see where this is going. There must be a bar exam to keep the politically correct law curriculum from graduating law graduates who know nothing.

I have zero patience for this discussion. The elements of the crime are the elements of the crime, and must be learnt, regardless of one's personal experience. Get over yourselves. "Triggers" are for weaklings who can't handle life.

The Eller/Kerns race is an interesting one from a political science vantage point. Each of the candidates have built-in advantages and disadvantages.

Eller's 2 biggest advantages are being 1) female and 2) first name in the race.

Kern's biggest advantages are 1) being the incumbent and 2) name recognition.

Eller is a relatively unknown candidate and I don't believe has ever run a race before. People might remember her first name but there is little about the last name that will remain memorable days/weeks after a brief introduction or typical cursory news story.

Kerns has received favorable puff piece news stories through the years (interestingly, none this year) and has historically had strong support from the Asian-American community.

Among the judicial races.. this is probably the most interesting one to watch.

I don't practice in muni court. Unless I know one of the candidates, which in this case I do not, I vote based on LVRJ approval rating and endorsements. From my read, Kerns and Almase are overwhelmingly endorsed and have high judicial approval ratings so they have my vote.

now before having clients sign the retainer agreement, CA attorneys are going to say something like, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I need you to know that if you think there is any chance we'll be having sex while I represent you, we're going to need to do it right now so our sexual relationship can officially predate the professional relationship."

comment guidelines

Feel free to speak your mind, but please keep it work-appropriate, slander and bully-free. If you feel that a post or comment has violated this guideline, please send an email to: quickdrawmclaw@gmail.com and/or law.dawg.esq@gmail.com for review.

Sometimes things start to come together in a most curious fashion--like this for instance. Remember convicted pimp Ocean Fleming, who was ...

Total Pageviews

Posts and comments published herein generally consist of rumors, speculation, assumptions, gossip and opinions. As a result, the content and links posted herein may very well contain erroneous or inaccurate information and/or information that may change over time. The owner/admins/bloggers/posters/moderators of this site cannot and do not ensure the accuracy of any content presented herein. Moreover, the content posted herein is intended for entertainment purposes only; nothing published herein should be construed or relied upon as legal advice or as constituting an attorney-client relationship.